Canon of Mark 16:9-20
Lesson 1
by: Steven J. Wallace www.RevelationAndCreation.com
The Canon of Mark 16:9-20
• Is Mark 16:9-20:
HOLY SCRIPTURE?
FRAUDULENT?
• Have you seen this in your Bible?
– “Later mss add vv 9-20” (NAS 95)
– “Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book
to a close at the end of verse 8” (NRSV)
– “The most reliable early manuscripts and other
ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20” (NIV)
when you see this insert Vaticanus & Sinaiticus
Some of the Most
Ancient Authorities?
???
• Minority Texts • Majority Text
– Alexandrian Texts (from – Textus Receptus
Alexandria, Egypt) (Received Text)
– a small number of – ~19 out of 20 of all Greek
manuscripts manuscripts (+5200)
– includes Vaticanus, – Peshitta (~150), Itala
Sinaiticus ~350 AD Vulgate (~157), Gothic
– Wescott/Hort (350) seem to follow
– NASB, NIV, RSV – all reformation bibles
followed (+ KJV, NKJV)
Four Kinds of Greek Manuscripts
1. Papyri
– paper made from Papyrus plant (Egypt)
– of those that survived, most only have
a few verses
– +90 in number
– some contain large portions of the NT (P45,
P46, P47, P66, P72, P75)
2. Uncials
– capital letters, no punctuation/divisions
– +260 in number
Four Kinds of Greek Manuscripts
3. Cursives
– lowercase, punctuated
– +2760 in number
4. Lectionaries
– portions of scriptures read in church
services (Greek or Latin)
– +2100 in number
ARGUMENTS
AGAINST MARK
• External Arguments:
– not in Codex Sinaiticus
(Aleph) or Vaticanus (B)
– Clement and Origen show
no knowledge of the text
• Internal Arguments
– 17 non-marcan words used
in the text
– theological inconsistency
regarding Jesus‟ form
The Canon of Mark 16:9-20
1. Argument Against: claimed not authentic because
it is not found in two of the “oldest manuscripts”
(Vatican ~325-350 AD & Sinaitic ~340 AD)
– Vaticanus not only leaves out Mark 16:9-20, but
also. . .
• 45 chapters of Genesis; Psalm 105:27-137:6;
the last half of Hebrews
• 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, Revelation (link)
– (this is one reason why modern college
professors tell their students to question the
authorship of these books! Rather, should we
not question the integrity of the few mutilated
manuscripts that omit them?)
The Canon of Mark 16:9-20
with John 7:53-8:11
• John 7:53-8:11 is also lacking in the same two
manuscripts (with others)! Yet it fits John‟s
theme:
– masterful teaching
– judgment
– entrapment/accusation sought by enemies
– light of the world
– Moses versus Christ
– women
• this passage not only condemned scribes when
it was originally written, but continued to
manifest their spirit of error by their willful
omission of it from various texts throughout time!
The Canon of Mark 16:9-20
• all of the ancient versions contain Mark
16:9-20 which shows that it was in the
Greek copies from which the translations
were made (Peshito Syriac, Old Latin,
Sahidic, Coptic, all of which were in
existence earlier than Vatican and Sinaitic)
SIDE POINT: (B) is no Friend to
those who Oppose Baptism!
• Those who oppose Baptism say Vaticanus
leaves out Mark 16:16 and therefore you
cannot use that to prove that baptism is
essential for salvation
– Yet Vaticanus includes the Epistle of Barnabas
which states, “But let us enquire whether the Lord
took care to signify before hand concerning the
water and the cross. Now concerning the water it
is written in reference to Israel, how that they
would not receive the baptism which bringeth
remission of sins, but would build for
themselves” (Epistle of Barnabas, 11:1)
Aleph and B are not two separate witnesses
“But Tischendorf proved to demonstration (Proleg., p. xx, 1
sqq.) that the two famous manuscripts are not here two
independent witnesses, because the scribe of B copies the
leaf in Aleph on which our passage stands. Moreover, in
both manuscripts, the scribe, though concluding with verse
8, betrays knowledge that something more followed either in
his archetype or in other manuscripts, for in B, contrary to
his custom, he leaves more than a column vacant after
verse 8, and in Aleph verse 8 is followed by an elaborate
arabesque, such as is met with nowhere else in the whole
manuscript, showing that the scribe was aware of the
existence of some conclusion which he meant deliberately
to exclude (cf. Cornely, "Introd.", iii, 96-99; Salmon, "Introd.",
144-48). Thus both manuscripts bear witness to the
existence of a conclusion following after verse 8, which they
omit” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm)
Aleph and B are not two separate witnesses
“The writing style is very similar to that of Sinaiticus.
Although there is not enough evidence to accept
identity of scribes, "the identity of the scribal tradition
stands beyond dispute" (Skeat). Especially the
colophon designs at the end of the books are
remarkably similar, sometimes almost identical (see
a comparison of the Sinaiticus colophon Mark and
the Vaticanus colophon Deuteronomy, here). It is
reasonable to assume that both codices have been
written in the same scriptorium or at least the same
place at arround [sic] the same time”
(http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/general.html#lit)
“It requires to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is
found to have been to begin every fresh book of the Bible at the
top of the next ensuing column to that which contained the
concluding words of the preceding book, has at the close of St.
Mark's Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. He has
left in this place one column entirely vacant. It is the only vacant
column in the whole manuscript - a blank space abundantly
sufficient to contain the twelve verses which he nevertheless
withheld. Why did he leave that column vacant? What can have
induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart from his
established rule? The phenomenon (I believe I was the first to call
distinct attention to it) is in the highest degree significant, and
admits only one interpretation. The older manuscript from which
Codex B was copied must have infallibly contained the twelve
verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them out -
and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam
rei. Never was a blank more intelligible! Never was silence more
eloquent!” (John Burgon) Vaticanus Foul Play?
“As many as nine other scribes tampered with the codex.
Consider the observations of Tischendorf once again. He "counted
14,800 corrections in Sinaiticus." (Codes Sinaiticus by Navida Shahid;
www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Religion/Islam/research/codx0894.html).
Alterations, and more alterations and more alterations were made,
and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and
7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are
corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." (Which Is The
Right Version of the Bible; www.waynejackson. freeserve.co.uk/kjv/v2.htm). He goes
on to say, "…the New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on
many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters,
words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or
begun and immediately canceled” (David L. Brown, Ph. D.,
http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm)
Sinaiticus Corruption?
“Several years back I went to the British
Museum, specifically to take a look at
Sinaiticus. To my surprise I discovered
that, while Mark 16:9-20 indeed was
missing, it was clear to see that it had
originally been there, but had been
pumiced (erased) out. The space was
http://logosresourcepages.
org/Versions/uncials.htm
still evident in the codex and the letters
could faintly be seen.
My point is, it was there originally. I could see it with my own
eyes! It was at that point that I realized that the note in my
New International Version - "The two most reliable early
manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20", was not telling the
whole story! In reality, the verses were originally there!”
(David L. Brown, Ph.D,
http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/uncials.htm)
Some of the Most
Ancient Authorities?
• Minority Texts • Majority Text
– Alexandrian Texts (from – Textus Receptus
Alexandria, Egypt) (Received Text)
– a small number of – ~19 out of 20 of all Greek
manuscripts manuscripts (+5200)
– includes Vaticanus, – not older than, Peshitta
Sinaiticus ~350 AD (~150), Itala Vulgate
– Wescott/Hort (~157), Gothic (350)
– NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV – all reformation bibles
followed (+ KJV, NKJV)
NKJV (Preface)
"The manuscript preferences cited in many
contemporary translations of the New testament are
due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts
discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts,
especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts,
is due to the greater age of these documents.
However, in spite of the age of the materials, some
scholars have shown reasons to doubt the faithfulness
of these manuscripts to the original text, since they
often disagree with one another and show other signs
of unreliability. The Greek text obtained by using this
minority of sources and related papyri is known as the
Alexandrian Text. . . .”
NKJV (Preface)
“. . . On the other hand, the great majority of existing
manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even
though many are later, and none is earlier than the
fifth century, most of their readings are verified by
ancient papyri, ancient versions, and quotations in the
writings of the early church fathers. This large body of
manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying
the King James Bible. It is the Geek text used by
Greek-speaking churches for many centuries,
presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received
Text, of the New Testament.”
The Canon of Mark 16:9-20
2. Argument Against: “Clement of
Alexandria and Origen show no
knowledge of the existence of these
verses”
– If I never quote from Zechariah 14 in my
writings, does that mean Zechariah 14 was
not in existence in my day?
– Clement believed baptism was essential for
salvation
150-200 AD CLEMENT
"Being baptized, we are illuminated;
illuminated, we become sons; being made sons,
we are made perfect; being made perfect, we
are made immortal... This work is variously
called grace, and illumination, and perfection,
and washing. Washing, by which we cleanse
away our sins; grace, by which the penalties
accruing to transgressions are remitted; and
illumination, by which that holy light of
salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see
God clearly." (Clement of Alexandria, "The
Instructor," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg.
215)
The Canon of Mark 16:9-20
2. Argument Against: “Clement of
Alexandria and Origen show no
knowledge of the existence of these
verses”
– Clement believed baptism was essential for
salvation
– Irenaeus quotes from this text in ca. 185 AD,
“Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against
Heresies III:10:5-6, which was written
ca.185 AD” (wikipedia.org)
– Justin Martyer . . .
The Canon of Mark 16:9-20
110-165 AD JUSTIN MARTYR
"He that, out of contempt, will not be baptized,
shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be
reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord
says: 'Except a man be baptized of water and of the
Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom
of heaven.' And again: 'He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not
shall be damned.'" (Justin Martyr "Constitutions of
the Holy Apostles," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, pg.
456-457.)
The Canon of Mark 16:9-20
3. Argument Against: “There are 17 non-marcan
words used”
– 17 words in these last 12 verses are not found
anywhere else in Mark
• In Mark 4:20-29 there are 14 words which occur
nowhere else in Mark‟s gospel!
– who questions the authenticity of Mark 4:20-29?
• In Luke 24:41-53, there are 9 words used
nowhere else by Luke!
– who questions the authenticity of Luke‟s ending?
41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He
said to them, "Have you any food here?“ 42 So they gave Him a
piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it
and ate in their presence. 44 Then He said to them, "These are the
words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things
must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the
Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.“ 45 And He opened their
understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. 46
Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was
necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the
third day, 47 "and that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48
"And you are witnesses of these things. 49 "Behold, I send the
Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem
until you are endued with power from on high.“ 50 ¶ And He led
them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed
them. 51 Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was
parted from them and carried up into heaven. 52 And they
worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and
were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen.
The Canon of Mark 16:9-20
3. Argument Against: “There are 17 non-marcan
words used”
– 17 words in these last 12 verses are not found
anywhere else in Mark
• In Mark 4:20-29 there are 14 words which occur
nowhere else in Mark‟s gospel!
– who questions the authenticity of Mark 4:20-29?
• In Luke 24:41-53, there are 9 words used
nowhere else by Luke!
– who questions the authenticity of Luke‟s ending?
The Canon of Mark 16:9-20
4. Argument Against: A theological contradiction!
“Mark 16:12 says, „And after that, He appeared in
a different form to two of them, while they were
walking along on their way to the country.’ This
verse may be problematic. Jesus rose in the
same body that he died in (John 2:19), though it
was a glorified body. This is problematic because
it suggests „a different form.‟ Jesus did not
appear in a different form. He appeared in the
same body he rose in” (Email 3/04/2006)
“After that, He appeared in another form to two of
them as they walked and went into the country”
(Mk. 16:12)
• Mark doesn‟t say that Jesus was in a
different “body” and doesn‟t deny that Jesus
physical “body” was raised!
– He simply appeared in another form to these two
– He restrained his appearance to these two
persons on a road in the country
– Jesus was “transfigured” before Peter, James
and John prior to his death, why could He not
take on another form at some time after his
death if He wanted (Matt. 17:1, 2)?
“After that, He appeared in another form to two of
them as they walked and went into the country”
(Mk. 16:12)
• If this discounts authenticity of Mark, then it
also denies the authenticity of Luke – both
speak of the same thing!
• “Now behold, two of them were traveling that
same day to a village called Emmaus. . . So it
was, while they conversed and reasoned, that
Jesus Himself drew near and went with them.
But their eyes were restrained, so that they
did not know Him” (Lk. 24:13, 15, 16)
– They compliment (not contradict) each other!
The Only Bogus Things In
Relation to Mark 16:9-20. . .
ARE THOSE
ARGUMENTS GIVEN TO
DISCOUNT ITS
AUTHENTICITY!
Peter/Mark Connection
• “She who is in Babylon, elect together with you,
greets you; and so does Mark my son”
(1 Pet. 5:13)
– Mark worked closely with Peter, Paul, and Barnabas
(Phil. 1:24; 2 Tim. 4:11; Col. 4:10; Acts 15:39)
– Mark simply taught what Peter already affirmed Jesus
taught regarding baptism:
“He who believes and is
“There is also an antitype
baptized will be saved; but
which now saves us––
he who does not believe will
baptism. . .” (1 Pet. 3:21)
be condemned” (Mk. 16:16)
The Canon of Mark 16:9-20
• No doctrine taught in Mark 16:9-20
contradicts any other doctrine in the NT
• Those in error hate this passage because
of its clearness
• Without Mark 16:9-20
– the disciples are left in our minds as “afraid”
– The Gospel appears unfinished
– the Great Commission would be left out (cf.
Matt. 28:18, 19, Lk. 24:46-49)
If you want to be
saved, obey
Mark 16:16 today in
belief and baptism!